Emerging Voices

Imagine my surprise when I found out that the Supreme Court recently upheld the "Federal Abortion Ban"! Having never heard of this piece of legislation (and as a rabid anti-choicer I think I do a good job at following abortion-related news) I did a quick search for it on Wikipedia. Nothing. So I did a news search for it. No recent stories, and only two with that actual term, one of which is capitalized to give the air of being an actual thing. I then decide to do a regular Google search and I came up with a hypothesis that the NARAL blog, BushvChoice, is in fact talking about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which was upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart. I actually called my local NARAL affiliate and confirmed that, yes, this is what the blog was talking about.

Here's what the blog said, in order to pump up support for their Freedom of Choice Act:


Now follow the link and you'll find a summary of the so-called "Federal Abortion Ban", which actually has never gone by that name that I can see. Now, obviously, NARAL doesn't want to go around saying "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" (or, for that matter, "abortion"—and actually they generally avoid "birth" as well...), but does anyone else find this just a tad bit dishonest? Don't the ladies at NARAL realize that, perhaps, when the college liberals read their blog that they might not have the faintest idea about what NARAL is talking about and conclude, from the name "Federal Abortion Ban", that it might be talking about just a bit more than partial-birth abortions? Not anywhere on that link do they provide the actual name of the ban (the Partial Birth Abortion Ban), the name of the Supreme Court cases that upheld the ban (Gonzales v. Carhart or Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood) or the medical uses of the term which they insisted that we use in place of "partial-birth abortion" when this whole thing was being debated (D&X procedure). If I didn't know any better, I'd say it's almost as if NARAL doesn't want ordinary Americans to know specific details what they heck they are talking about!

Here's what they consider "background" information with common sense questions inserted:

• The Supreme Court struck down an almost identical state law as unconstitutional in 2000 [Um, and that would be...?], and every court to hear a challenge to this first-ever federal ban on abortion declared it unconstitutional. [Do you guys care if it goes the other way: when courts uphold pro-life bills but the Supreme Court upholds your side? It really doesn't look good for the pro-choice crowd to be whining about us having the Supreme Court give us something the other courts wouldn't.]
  
• Since the Court's decision in 2000, President Bush appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and abortion foes see these appointments as an opportunity to undermine the Roe v. Wade decision.
• For the first time since Roe, this ban [WHAT BAN?] has no exception for the health of the woman.
• Any doctor who violates this ban [WHAT BAN?] would face criminal penalties of up to 2 years in prison, even if he/she was acting to protect the woman's health.
• This ban [WHAT BAN?] rolls back key protections that have been guaranteed since the days of Roe v. Wade.
• The Court, with the addition of Bush's appointees, has disregarded the medical opinion of leading doctors who oppose the ban [WHAT BAN?]. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - which represents 90 percent of the OB GYNs in this country - says the ban is harmful to women's health and interferes with medical decision making.

Um...OK. Finally at the end of their laborious fear-mongering page, they offer a link for "More Information", which includes the name of the Supreme Court case, but nothing else that would even remotely clue-in readers as to what they are talking about. That page says, "State legislatures across the country continue to introduce new total bans to challenge Roe in the courts, and the majority of state legislatures and Congress have passed unconstitutional laws that would ban safe and medically appropriate abortion care as early as the 12th week in pregnancy." Throwing this in there (the introduction of "total bans") intentionally insinuates that this is what the "Federal Abortion Ban" also is. I would think that the average person—even someone who isn't very bright—might see just a bit of a difference in a total ban on abortion and late-term abortions.

Why can't NARAL just come out and say what they are actually thinking: "We are OK with partial-birth abortion for any reason!" It would make things so much easier, though, frankly, they may feel a dwindle in support. Like I've said before, NARAL does not support anywhere near the vast majority of self-identified pro-choicers. They are for abortion for any reason whatsoever, at any stage of pregnancy, with "no apology". Of course they start crying about the fact that there is no "health" exception in Gonzales v. Carhart—er, I mean "The Federal Abortion Ban", causing housewives in Manhattan to lock up the kids in the basement and go out in search of wire coat-hangers for the impeding Doom that will befall women.

In a pathetic hope that somewhere NARAL would link their own name for the ban and the actual name of the ban together, I clicked on yet another "Find Out More Information" link (what is this, "Choose Your Own Adventure" on the NARAL website?) and that led me to a press release that only Nancy Keenan could draft. Of course, that painful read provided no information about the actual details of "The Federal Abortion Ban", but, indeed, "this is a setback for all Americans who believe politicians should not make private, personal medical decisions for the rest of us". I wonder had Nancy worded it, "This is a setback for all Americans who believe politicians should not be making private, personal late-term partial-birth abortion decisions for the rest of is" if it would ring the same with the average American as her first sentence.

My most loyal pro-choice readers will undoubtedly scoff and say that there is nothing deceptive about the term "Federal Abortion Ban" and yes, they can see that it is capitalized as a proper noun rather than a regular noun, what does that have to do with anything—why would I ask? NARAL can do no wrong.

Labels: law, NARAL